I have come to fact that all major compilers will not do tail call optimization if a called function does not return (i.e. marked as _Noreturn
/[[noreturn]]
or there is a __builtin_unreachable()
after the call). Is this an intended behavior and not a missed optimization, and if so why?
Example 1:
#ifndef __cplusplus
#define NORETURN _Noreturn
#else
#define NORETURN [[noreturn]]
#endif
void canret(void);
NORETURN void noret(void);
void foo(void) { canret(); }
void bar(void) { noret(); }
C: https://godbolt.org/z/pJfEe- C++: https://godbolt.org/z/-4c78K
Example 2:
#ifdef _MSC_VER
#define UNREACHABLE __assume(0)
#else
#define UNREACHABLE __builtin_unreachable()
#endif
void f(void);
void foo(void) { f(); }
void bar(void) { f(); UNREACHABLE; }
It's intentional, though perhaps controversial since it can seriously harm stack usage properties; for this reason I've even resorted to tricking the compiler to think a function that can't return can. The reasoning is that many noreturn functions are abort
-like (or even call abort
), and that it's likely someone running a debugger wants to be able to see where the call happened from -- information which would be lost by a tail call.
Citations: